Popes John XXIII, John Paul II to be canonized April 27th

posted at 10:01 am on September 30, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Two of the great figures of the Second Vatican Council will be canonized on the same day next year. The Vatican announced that they will add Popes John Paul II and John XXIII to the list of saints on April 27th next year. That falls on Divine Mercy Sunday, a feast day instituted by John Paul II:

Two of the most-loved leaders of the Catholic Church, Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II, will be raised to sainthood together in a joint canonization ceremony — the first such ceremony in the church’s history.

At a consistory in the Vatican, Pope Francis announced Monday that the joint canonization will be held on April 27, the day on which the Catholics celebrate the Second Sunday of Easter, marking the feast day of Divine Mercy.

Italian and Vatican authorities have started to plan for an event expected to draws hundreds of thousands of faithful from around the world. Many intend to make the journey from John Paul’s native Poland.

Pope Francis signed a decree on July 5 that gave the go-ahead to the canonizations of his two predecessors. Observers say the decision to canonize the two popes together appears designed to unify Catholics.

The popular Polish pope John Paul and his Italian predecessor known as “Good Pope John”, are two of modern-day Catholicism’s most influential figures.

The double sainthood is seen by Vatican watchers as an attempt to breach a traditional left-right divide in the Church.

“John XXIII is generally a hero to the church’s progressive wing while John Paul II is typically lionized by Catholic conservatives,” said John Allen, from the National Catholic Reporter, a US weekly.

Allen said the decision could be interpreted as “a statement that any attempt to set them at odds is artificial, and that what they had in common is more fundamental than any perceived differences”.

In my perception — which is somewhat limited — I haven’t really seen that kind of split in legacies, at least not on the ground in the parishes. John Paul II was such a towering figure and had such a lengthy papacy that his message and legacy never fit well in a right/left paradigm. (The same is true for Benedict XVI, despite the media’s coverage of him as a hard-right conservative.) John XXIII remains a beloved figure in the church for both his push for a new council and his humble approach to the papacy, which foreshadows Francis’ approach so much that it hardly seems coincidental.

Perhaps among some, this represents a show of unity. Considering how important both men were to the Second Vatican Council, though, it’s at least as important a statement to the commitment of the Vatican to those reforms. John XXIII launched Vatican II, and John Paul II was one of its most important participants, and later a Pope enthusiastic about enacting its findings. For those Catholics who want a return to a pre-Vatican II church, the message from Pope Francis seems extraordinarily clear: there is no going back.

In the first place, and as the pope himself stressed throughout the interview, the occupant of the Chair of Peter is not exactly free to rewrite the teachings of the church. As he also said to America and La Civiltà Cattolica and everybody else, “The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear, and I am a son of the church.” Translation: Any papal capitulation to vox populi on matters of morals has a proverbial snowball’s chance.

Second, in a way that many people today do not understand (and Francis does), even if the teachings that put a kick me sign on the church could be changed by fiat, it would be self-defeating to do so. The mainline Protestant churches have all tried just that–throwing out the unwanted baby of the traditional moral code with the theological bathwater. Yet they’re still drowning. Over the centuries, people have found plenty to complain about in the church’s bans on abortion, contraception and extramarital sex. But that fact doesn’t undermine the code’s internal consistency–or its appeal to those who have found in it a tough but beautiful truth.

And neither would Pope Francis seek to undermine this code. He immediately followed his interview with a speech to a medical group in which he observed that the unborn too have “the face of Jesus.” And days later, he presided over the excommunication of a priest who had defied church teachings about gay marriage and female clergy. To some people, this might look like politicking on both sides, but to those who follow the church’s official teachings, it’s just playing by the rules.

No, Francis isn’t asking anyone to back off from 2,000 years of teaching, give or take a few decades. He’s making a different and pragmatic point: in a world already blasted by sin, the church is first and foremost a field hospital for broken souls. (“Heal the wounds,” he explained.) And as the Pope has also made clear in his pastoral work, including in his recent phone call to a pregnant woman in turmoil because her already married boyfriend was pressuring her to have an abortion, the sexual revolution is sending a steady stream of patients to the wards.

The analogy of the Church as “field hospital” fits precisely into the Second Vatican Council’s paradigm of living in the world while calling people to be not of the world. That is what the Vatican will be celebrating on Divine Mercy Sunday next year.

Update: In response to a comment I made below on the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, an e-mailer writes:

In the comments of your post regarding the canonization of John XXIII and JPII, you stated that, “Benedict XVI gave the discretion to the bishops on authorizing Tridentine Mass celebrations as they see fit.” That is incorrect. JPII gave that encouragement in 1988 in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Unfortunately many bishops see the TLM as a threat and suppressed it.

Benedict XVII’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was so important because it allows an individual parish priest to celebrate the TLM in spite of a bishop’s wishes. It put the power into the hands of the laity of and of the parish priest. It also gave explicit permission for religious communities to use the TLM.

John Paul II was such a towering figure and had such a lengthy papacy that his message and legacy never fit well in a right/left paradigm

Not so sure the leftists in the Church will agree with that assessment.

One of the first things JPII did was to haul himself down to Columbia and put an immediate halt to the Jesuit game of Marxist Liberation Theology; the very same Marxist game co-opted by the pro abortion Obama’s church calling it Black Liberation Theology.

And we thought that Christ had rejected Satan’s use of scripture to accomplish his evil….

The traditionalist Catholics remain a bit of a mystery to me. I’ve always thought they saw Vatican II as heresy…a pretty strong word. One thing I, as a simple lay Catholic, want to do someday is go to a Tridentine Mass…my parish doesn’t do one, so I’d have to travel a little bit. From what I understand, the Vatican doesn’t really encourage these “extraordinary form” services…but I can’t understand what harm it does.

Over the centuries, people have found plenty to complain about in the church’s bans on abortion, contraception and extramarital sex. But that fact doesn’t undermine the code’s internal consistency–or its appeal to those who have found in it a tough but beautiful truth.

Sorry but the fact that so many “good Catholics” in Congress have worked on behalf of an abortion agenda is completely at odds with church teachings. And yet there is no effort to excommunicate those responsible for the untold murder of millions. I don’t find that consistent internally or otherwise. It sends the message that the RCC really doesn’t care about the abortion issue.

Benedict XVI gave the discretion to the bishops on authorizing Tridentine Mass celebrations as they see fit. The Vatican supports it as one form, but wants the vernacular to be the predominant form.

Check with your diocese office to see what the bishop has decided on the matter. Public input would probably have some impact. If they don’t discern any demand for it, it’s probably a low-level issue for them.

I’ve been busy. But on this day of shutdown mayhem, why isn’t Hot Air covering the negotiations. This is the best evidence that conservatives know the GOP has [email protected] the bed on this.

libfreeordie on September 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM

What negotiations? Obama played golf this weekend. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were out of town. The Senate isn’t even convening until 10 hours before the shutdown occurs. Reid said the House vote was pointless and the lazy stupid coward vowed to veto.

How do you negotiate with an enemy that thinks they are holding all the cards even though they don’t?

Affirms everything in Trent (including the anathemas)… Muslims can achieve salvation… Islam adores the same god as the RCC… Muslims are first among the monotheists… if you willingly leave the RCC you can’t be saved (better off being a Muslim who never entered in than a Christian who leaves).

Was John XXIII the former Angelo Roncalli? He was my Jewish Ma’s favorite pope. She used to tell me that she wasn’t phased by Kennedy’s death-but that she sobbed like a kid when the FKA Angelo Roncalli died.

Benedict XVI gave the discretion to the bishops on authorizing Tridentine Mass celebrations as they see fit. The Vatican supports it as one form, but wants the vernacular to be the predominant form.

Check with your diocese office to see what the bishop has decided on the matter. Public input would probably have some impact. If they don’t discern any demand for it, it’s probably a low-level issue for them.

Ed Morrissey on September 30, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Where I am now in NY, my church is small, almost quaint and is run by Franciscans…so a Tridentine Mass won’t happen there. But there are larger churches not far from me…I’d just like to go once in a while, as the simple majesty of such a mass sounds appealing. I had heard Pope Francis has been less than enthusiastic about Franciscans and the traditional mass as reported on here last month:

Affirms everything in Trent (including the anathemas)… Muslims can achieve salvation… Islam adores the same god as the RCC… Muslims are first among the monotheists… if you willingly leave the RCC you can’t be saved (better off being a Muslim who never entered in than a Christian who leaves).

/Vat II

Yeah, not a fan.

mankai on September 30, 2013 at 10:21 AM

If you leave the RCC knowing it to be the one true church founded by Christ you risk your salvation. At least that’s how I’ve always understood it.

If you leave the RCC knowing it to be the one true church founded by Christ you risk your salvation. At least that’s how I’ve always understood it.

JetBoy on September 30, 2013 at 10:37 AM

I get that, but surely you can see the duplicity in the doctrine. That is how it is explained in this age, but it was never understood that way by former Popes or in other councils. It’s a reiteration of an established doctrine that is no longer politically expedient, so it is included, then given a ridiculous condition.

Despite Leo XIII condemning the notion that clearly stated doctrines can said be reinterpreted because of “greater understanding” the doctrine of damnation for either “refuing to enter in” or “willingly leav[ing]” is constantly said to be “better understood” as time goes by.

The problem is this, if clear statements on the very doctrine of salvation made by former Popes cannot be trusted, how can one trust any pope on any doctrine? If we can “reinterpret” or even deny the words of Eugene IV, how do know that the words of John XXIII or JPII or Francis will not be “reinterpreted” or denied in another generation by another Pope?

Trent is very clear and fully affirmed in Vatican II (at least in word). I would think that those from that Council would be shocked to hear how their clear statements have been “reinterpreted.”

To clarify, Leo XIII condemned the idea that clearly stated doctrines can reinterpreted due to “greater understanding.”

mankai on September 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Vatican II didn’t simply “change” to fit modern times. It just made the “fit” for lack of a better word. The mass no longer needed to be in Latin, for instance. The reason it was, is because adhering to one standard language was to discourage translational error. With technological improvements, that became less necessary.

As Catholics, we believe the the Church is infallible in doctrine. And the Pope is infallible speaking ex cathedra. And everything is rooted in Holy Scripture and Church Tradition. A change in one cannot negate the other.

Benedict XVI gave the discretion to the bishops on authorizing Tridentine Mass celebrations as they see fit. The Vatican supports it as one form, but wants the vernacular to be the predominant form.
Ed Morrissey on September 30, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Ed, you make a very common mistake and one that is the source of great frustration for many. The Summorum Pontificum did not give Bishops discretion to prevent priests from saying the Mass of the ages, a valid and licit Mass. Read the Universae Ecclesiae document that clarifies the the old form of the Mass is valid for all priests not specifically prevented is cannon law. Check out the part on Sacerdos Idoneus.

One does not need permission of your Bishop to say the perfectly valid older form.

It takes some degree of mental gymnastics to find Muslim or atheist or Jewish salvation in this:

[The Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Read the entire bull for context. There is no wiggle room in there. Unam Sanctam is even more to the Pope adding that one must be “subject to the Roman Pontiff” to be saved.

I could quote many more Popes and Councils, but this is given for your consideration. Now, in light of Leo’s condemnation of trying to reinterpret clear doctrines under the guise of “greater understanding,” how do you get Jewish salvation from this (as is taught in Vat II)?

Now, it matters not to me what any Pope has to say about salvation, but it does call into question the reliability of anything any Pope has to say about anything if your doctrine of salvation can change with the times.

Where I am now in NY, my church is small, almost quaint and is run by Franciscans…so a Tridentine Mass won’t happen there. But there are larger churches not far from me…I’d just like to go once in a while, as the simple majesty of such a mass sounds appealing. I had heard Pope Francis has been less than enthusiastic about Franciscans and the traditional mass as reported on here last month:

Perhaps I can provide some background on the issues with the Tridetine Mass as well as the Franciscan Friars. Lots of people attend the Vetus Ordo Mass a a protest against Vatican II and there are huge issues with misogyny and homophobia among those that like the Old Mass. For instance, I’m not sure if you are aware of Cardinal Burke, who he is and the sorts of comments that he has made in the past about gay people. It is even worse outside the U.S. The Argentine traditionalist Catholics are very anti-Semitic and deny the Holocaust. They and then Cardinal Bergoglio were at odds because of his embrace of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires.

I enjoy Gregorian chant and Mozart’s Masses, but I’d never attend a Vetus Ordo Mass because of the intolerant views of many of the people who like it. As a cradle Catholic that has had a really bad relationship with the Church, I am really wary of very conservative Catholics.

As for the Franciscan Friars, the Vetus Ordo Mass was being used by the founder to push a political statement against Vatican II. He and a group of nuns were being manipulated by SSPX. This caused divisions in the group itself. As a result, the Franciscans must get special permission to say the Vetus Ordo Mass. Apparently, permission has been granted fairly easily where there is fall out to lay Catholics.

Re: Unam Sanctam, I have been told that the language, “those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics” referred to those among those groups who had heard and rejected the Gospel and the Church, and that it doesn’t contradict the idea of invincible ignorance.

Was John XXIII the former Angelo Roncalli? He was my Jewish Ma’s favorite pope. She used to tell me that she wasn’t phased by Kennedy’s death-but that she sobbed like a kid when the FKA Angelo Roncalli died.

annoyinglittletwerp on September 30, 2013 at 10:28 AM

As the papal nuncio to Istanbul, Angelo Roncalli saved thousands of Jews by issuing false baptismal certificates which allowed them to immigrate to the Holy Land. There is a group that is trying to get him recognized as one of the Righteous.

Don’t you want it to depend on the rules for canonization? You do know it’s partly up to the person being investigated whether he/she wants to be canonized. As for it taking hundreds of years, sometimes the records were pretty scarce or the purported intercessions by the person were not all that convincing.

There are all sorts of Saints, by the way. Actually, I’m pretty sure everyone who is in heaven is a saint. The ones we put on a list are ones we reserve for special worship (dulia), some locally, others universally. Usually, the local ones are beatified which specifically allows honoring them in some limited ways which may be described as privately, IIRC, while canonization allows it universally and publicly.

It would be nice to know what two miracles by John XXIII and JPII were confirmed by the Church. That is part of the investigation into canonization, isn’t it?

I’ve been busy. But on this day of shutdown mayhem, why isn’t Hot Air covering the negotiations. This is the best evidence that conservatives know the GOP has [email protected] the bed on this. libfreeordie on September 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I think that BOTH JPII and JohnXXIII deserve to be recognized-under their birth names-as ‘Righteous Gentiles’. Both helped to save Jews during WWII. The honors are long overdue. annoyinglittletwerp on September 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM

“Gentiles” can be righteous without having anything to do with the holocaust, but thanks.

It would be nice to know what two miracles by John XXIII and JPII were confirmed by the Church. That is part of the investigation into canonization, isn’t it?

Dusty on September 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Actually, it is only three and they are known. John XXIII’s was a nun who had cancer. And John Paul II’s were a nun with Parkinson’s disease and a Guatemalan lady with an aneurysm. The last JPII one was apparently a shocking miracle even in the realm of miraculous healing. JXXIII’s second miracle was waved by Francis. The pope has final say over who does and doesn’t become a saint with or without the miracles.

It is clear that Francis wanted to cannonize the two together for political reasons – each has his own constituency in the Church. And it also blunts some of the criticism about JPII’s papacy (i.e. sexual abuse scandals.)

Perhaps I can provide some background on the issues with the Tridetine Mass as well as the Franciscan Friars. Lots of people attend the Vetus Ordo Mass a a protest against Vatican II and there are huge issues with misogyny and homophobia among those that like the Old Mass. For instance, I’m not sure if you are aware of Cardinal Burke, who he is and the sorts of comments that he has made in the past about gay people. It is even worse outside the U.S. The Argentine traditionalist Catholics are very anti-Semitic and deny the Holocaust. They and then Cardinal Bergoglio were at odds because of his embrace of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires.

I enjoy Gregorian chant and Mozart’s Masses, but I’d never attend a Vetus Ordo Mass because of the intolerant views of many of the people who like it. As a cradle Catholic that has had a really bad relationship with the Church, I am really wary of very conservative Catholics.

As for the Franciscan Friars, the Vetus Ordo Mass was being used by the founder to push a political statement against Vatican II. He and a group of nuns were being manipulated by SSPX. This caused divisions in the group itself. As a result, the Franciscans must get special permission to say the Vetus Ordo Mass. Apparently, permission has been granted fairly easily where there is fall out to lay Catholics.

Illinidiva on September 30, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Interesting…I’ll read up on that. I knew there was some animosity over the Franciscans but never knew exactly why. Cheers.

Thanks for the info. It was more rhetorical since there was no mention in Ed’s post. I saw the three in the stroies linked and thought t might be important in talking about the politics of this, that Ed might have included that obvious aspect of it.

The stories suggest Francis’ action is not unprecedented but is rare and I wonder if that is accurate. There are two kinds of canonization, formal and equivalent, with the latter allowing some rule bending relating to available history and records, none of which I think would apply to a Pope who died as recently as 60 years ago.

i didn’t think canonization could occur so quickly after death. Hmmmmmm – there used to be requirements that had to be met and then documented and then checked????

I was raised Catholic and appreciate the dogma of the Church. It’s been around for about 2000 years – no other human institution has existed that long so there must be some “there” there. It’s had its ups and downs for sure; its major mistakes but overall, it’s still here so…. must be doing something right. But sainthood this fast? What about beatification first?

Akzed knows damn well what the term ‘Righteous Gentile’ refers to-yet he had to get his dig in. Some folks fear the boogyman at night-Akzed fears those eeeevil Joooos. /// annoyinglittletwerp on September 30, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Of course I know, and I find it offensive. There is but one Jew who can confer righteousness on anyone, by grace through faith in His death and resurrection. If you can post anything I’ve said here that is anti-Semitic, I’d appreciate it. Until then you’re a liar.

When someone who’s been banned for a racist comment combines with a raving sodomist to lie about me, I am somehow not bothered.

Jet was kind enough to point out your comments from this year’s 9/11 thread.
You are a worthless, Jew-hating, troofer b8stard.
My comment about illegals was not deserving of the hammer-but your troofer dreck on 9/11 more than deserved it.

Please quote my anti-Semitic remarks. Until then you’re a serial liar. Had I said anything about Hebrews nearly as awful as what you said about Hispanics, I would have been banned. You are therefore implying that Ed and AP wink at anti-Semitic remarks on HA. Tsk tsk.

Truthers hate that site, it destroys their fallacious theories. That makes me a truther? Ok!

Now go take a Midol before commenting further or you might lapse into another racist rant and get banned again; this time maybe for good, Ms. Hispanic hater.